Gunnery Pod (spoilers)

[Timo]

I LOVED THE GUNNERY POD!!! I had the same reaction to it that I had to Stellar Cartography in Star Trek: Generations - I WANT ONE!!!

Is it how a real weapons system might work? Maybe. Who cares? There's no sound in space either, but hearing ships whoosh by sure makes it a hell of a lot more fun.

If you want a "real" system, go build it yourself, then film it.

As for me, I'll take as much of the gunnery pod as I can get.

Enjoy what we can imagine to work now, before it all comes crashing down in the reality of the future.

------------------
- Timo
"We cannot guarantee success. But we can deserve it." -- John Adams

 

[Lyta]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lyta:
Anyway, all of you who have issues with the gunnery pod should pop on over to the moderated newsgroup and read the article titled "Review of Liandra's Weapon System" by Charles J. Cohen. He gives an excellent, intelligent and well thought out evaluation of the concept. JMS himself has even replied to it and is going to try to incorporate some of those concepts and points if/when the series comes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



------------------
Monica Hübinette | Abyss : B5 <- New & Improved!
Pouch-sucking spawn of a bladder fish! Son of a fitch piece of smelt! Tok-swallowing fenbarger! Thrak it! --Na'Feel swearing in B5LR

 

[Zaptan]

Reading this tread it seems most of you only look at the pod itself and not the Pod's use in the ship itself.

the Liandra is a tiny ship, they said a crew of 20. having 4 people on the Guns, while may be better tacitly, is just not possible. you have one weapons officer, while the whole command staff should know how to work the weapons. for a backup I would be that the place she sat at on the bridge has a 2d targeting system if faster response is needed. Or even more likely seeing how the computers interact with her in the pod there's most likely a auto fire mode.

Lots of people complain that this system is a bad idea in the case of a big battle, well seeing how small the ship is, yet still to big to be called a fighter class, Is not designed for battle. the weapon systems are for defense. Its a 20 year old ranger ship built before the shadow war, before the Earth-minbari war, it was during the ranger's time of waiting. no need for a battleship.

the punch kick system was found not to be a great system... which is why you don't see it on other ships. Why then have this pod? as the Liandra was built during the ranger's time of waiting Ill bet the use of the Pod was more for scout purposes then just gunning, But because of the events, that was the only system in it used this time.

Personally I liked the Idea... Most of the Ideas Posted here still involve Pushing a button... which is seem was exactly what they DID NOT want to do. Original Ideas are in short supply now days, Don't complain about the few that make it out.

------------------
Master Of Death
Zaptan

 

[integra2112]

The "originalness" of an idea doesnt detract from how believable, realistic, or practical it may be. The probable reason why we havent 'seen' this idea in other sci-fi shows may be the fact that its plagued with limitations and would be pretty inefficient concerning something that directly bears on the health and safety of the crew (in actuality ive seen the idea done in anime in a much more intelligent believable manner, see Macross Plus). The point of weapons control is just that, acquire your target, track it, and destroy it as quickly as possible in the most efficient comprehensive manner. A computer can reanalyze the position, speed, and vector of a target thousands of times a second. As amazing as human minds are, a human simply can't complete these tasks anywhere near as well as a computer can. Why have anything less than the best method involved when the fate of the entire crew is at stake? For the cardiovascular health of the weapons operator? Aerobigunning. I guess it looks 'cooler' then someone pushing a button.

On a seperate thread dealing with this topic, an actor from the series defended the system and said well its sci-fi, about possibilities, basically imploring people not to be so critical. The whole reason i enjoyed the original series was its consistency and internal logic. Of course the technology is fictitious and requires leaps and bounds made in terms of suspension of disbelief. But just because its 'science fiction' doesnt mean its excluded from a critique of any plot point, just as in any other fiction. The fictional elements never really defied basic common sense in terms of practicality. This one does. All Sci fi has their flaws and silly technological limitations. For instance in the star trek universe, anyone with 'warp' technology could pulverize planets at will. what better weapon then a warp engine smacking into a planet? The weapons pod just took it too far for my taste I suppose.

I loved the original series for its well thought out story arc, dynamic characters, and its real lack of the predictability that has plagued other sci-fi television. I hope that those elements will prevail in the new series. If not, theres plenty of great Sci-fi books to read.

------------------

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Thank you Lyta, for your link to that analysis. While I disagree with some insignificant points, it provided a great summary of the system, strengths and weaknesses alike. I recommend that everyone have a look. My personal improvement suggestions would be quite similar:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Make the gesture language more flexible, more complicated and less exhausting. Consider adding voice commands as modifiers.
<LI>Consider letting the weapons officer stand, the image moving instead of her. This would eliminate the need for artificial gravity or floating.
<LI>Consider creating this environment on Liandra's bridge, meaning that the system can be "up and running" on much shorter notice.
<LI>Consider if the system might be used by more than one person simultaneously (or could perform some tasks automatically).[/list]

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited January 22, 2002).]

 

[Loburian]

Ok.

So, it was a nice idea, that had to be used on the fly. I am glad JMS will try new things.

I just think that part of it was very cheesy. I think if the Gunnery person did not have to shoot out of her hands like she did that would be alot better.

I did like all the rest of the show and will still watch it regardless.

Loburian

------------------
No matter where you go...there you are.

 

[KoshN]

I'm posting the following thing (with permission) that I saw in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. You can got to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated to read JMS's response (He liked it.).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles J. Cohen" <charles@mynah.eecs.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 3:01 PM
Subject: Review of Liandra's Weapon System

This article is a review of the Liandra's gesture and virtual reality
based fire control system as seen on Babylon 5: Legends of the
Rangers. I wanted to review it because gesture recognition based
systems ares my main area of study, and I am always excited to see
representations of gesture based systems television and films.

This review by its nature contains spoilers, but I will be avoiding
major plot points as much as I can.

Quick review: I believe that this Liandra's method of weapon control
is a well designed system to allow a person to actively target ships,
while ensuring appropriate system response (i.e. weapons firing) when
desired without false positives (i.e. a weapon firing when it is not
desired). There are some clear areas for enhancing the system, such
as adding higher level gesture commands, as well as voice.

Long review.


My Qualifications

So, who am I to be doing such a review? Human-Computer Interaction
(HCI), and specifically gesture recognition, are my area of expertise.
While I'm not *the* foremost expert in this area, I am well versed in
the field. My Ph.D. in gesture recognition (Electrical Engineering
Systems, minors in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics) is from the
University of Michigan in 1996 (thesis: Dynamical System
Representation, Generation, and Recognition of Basic Oscillatory
Motion Gestures, and Applications for the Control of Actuated
Mechanisms). Since then I've published a variety of papers in the
fields of gesture recognition, HCI, and machine vision [1], have been
interviewed by a small number of news publications [2], and have given
talks on this subject [3]. My company (Cybernet Systems) has produced
a very basic gesture/tracking software product called "Use Your Head"
[4], that allows a person to use their head motions as an additional
game device (which could be considered a precursor to the Liandra's
targeting system!). I've installed prototype gesture recognition
systems for NASA and the Army [5], and still have government funding
to continue this research.

Again, I'm not *the* authority in this area, but I like to consider my
an authority. Since I also love Science Fiction in general, and
Babylon 5 in specific, I decided it would be fun to review the
Liandra's system.


Overview of the Liandra's Fire Control System.

This overview is taken from my viewings of Babylon 5: Legends of the
Rangers. I will try to point out three things: What I know, what I
think I know, and what I don't know. That is, I'll try to keep
assumptions to a minimum, and if I can't, I will at least point out
what it is I'm assuming. I'd appreciate any feedback letting me know
what I got wrong.

What I know:

1. The weapon's control officer (WCO) is suspended in a full zero
gravity Virtual Reality (VR) environment.

2. The WCO has three degrees of rotational motion (roll, pitch, and
yaw) centered around her center of gravity. That is, she can
rotate herself to any orientation to view the combat environment as
desired.

3. The VR environment is similar to that found on the Minbari command
ships [6]. That is, a full 3D representation of the battle space,
with gestures used to focus attention on various aspects of the
battle environment, terrain, and assets.

4. Each of the WCO's extremities (hands and feet) are linked to
specific weapons on the Liandra.

5. Ship tracking and targeting is performed using an eye-tracking
system.

6. Multiple ships could be targeted off of the eye-tracking system.

7. A "fire" gesture consists of pumping a limb (arm or leg). There is
a limited vocabulary in the set of gesture commands. The direction
of fire is the direction of the gesture, matched up to the
eye-tracking software to determine the target. The ship's computer
actually aims/targets the weapons.

8. A list of possible targets from eye-tracking is kept, so that if
the WCO points at a ship behind her current viewing, that ship will
be attacked.


What I think I know:

1. The gravity isn't quite zero g because the WCO remains centered in
the VR environment. Therefore, some forces must be acting upon her
to keep her centered and not bumping into walls.

2. Although only one eye was shown to track ships, I believe that both
eyes were probably tracked to allow full three-dimensional target
acquisition (that is, both eyes would be needed to determine which
ship should be targeted when two ships are in the same
line-of-site, the near one or the far one).

3. Extra battle information was either being presented (drawn with
light) on to the WCO's eyes or on the VR screens directly, so she
saw more than what we saw. This information was probably targeting
information, status, etc.

4. It looks like the rate of fire of the Liandra's weapons were based
off of the speed the WCO could pump her limbs.

5. The system never misinterpreted a command. That is, a shot was
fired only when the WCO wanted it to fire, and it did not fire when
the WCO did not want it to fire. In other words, it is a very
robust system.


What I don't know:

1. I could not tell if voice recognition was used at all.

2. Can the WCO's firing commands be overridden from the bridge?

3. What happens if the ship is so damaged as to lose artificial
gravity?

4. Aside from firing gestures, are there other hand/body gestures
available to the WCO?


Discussion:

As stated in the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5, this fire control system
is probably based on taking advantage of the Ranger's physical combat
training [7]. However, I think there is more to it than that.

What would a WCO want from a human-computer interface for a battle
system? I believe it is the following:

1. Quick identification of target(s) to fire at.

2. Full control of all weapons simultaneously.

3. Instant information, but only that which is desired (too much
information is just as bad as too little).

4. Ability to view the entire battle-space, with proper orientation and
perspective (that is, in a way we humans (and apparently Minbari)
can understand it).

It is my opinion that the VR/gesture system as portrayed in B5:LotR
achieves all the above desires, better than a keyboard, mouse, or
button interface could. Specifically:

1. Quick target identification. Without using eye-tracking and
gesture, to target a ship (among multiple targets), either a mouse
must be moved over the iconic representation, or multiple
keyboard/button commands must be given to cycle through to the
target. If touch screen capability is allowed (pointing at a
specific ship), then that is just an instantiation of the Liandra's
gesture system. The WCO simply looks at a target, and that target
is the one a weapon will fire at if the gesture command is given in
the target's direction. Multiple targets could be tracked this
way, even the huge number of space mines that were targeted and
destroyed (but see more below).

2. Full simultaneous weapon control. Each weapon was linked to the
WCO's limbs. For example - left cannon = left arm. With practice,
using the Liandra's ship board weapons would be just like using any
other hand held weapon in combat, which is what the Rangers excel
at. A question that arises is what if there are more than four
weapons on a ship - how are they controlled? (See Improvement's
below.)

3. Instant information. The VR environment probably provides more
information than just a camera view. Status of enemy
power/weapons, full location, various weapon ranges (for enemy,
friend, and the Liandra herself), etc., would all be available and
either drawn on the eye or displayed on the VR screen.

4. Full battle-space view. I think this my even be my favorite part of
the system. Current battlefield commanders have a difficult time
viewing a battle-space environment. Here, the WCO just has to rotate
her body/head and she can see everything, and still keep relative
orientations of friends and foes in view. Yes, she has to be in
excellent shape, but that is not unheard of in the military.


So, overall, I do find that this weapon interface is a viable one, and
has definite advantages over traditional computer input devices.
However, there is always room for improvements, which is my next
section.


Improvements and Issues:

First, a note: the improvements and issues I list have probably
already been thought of by the Babylon 5 staff, and just not shown due
to budget/time/plot considerations. Also, these are just my opinions,
and I could easily see other people (or weapon officers) disagreeing
with me. But then again, that is why we have discussion groups!

I am a firm believer that gestures will be an important input device
in the future. However, I do not believe that gestures are the "be all
and end all" in human-computer interaction devices. For example, I
would not use gestures to replace a computer mouse (which is great for
simple pointing, clicking, and pull-down menu operations) because,
well, we already have a device that works as well as a computer mouse
- the computer mouse itself!

So, while I think that gestures as shown works well as an input
device for the WCO, I think more is needed, and in this case, that
would be voice recognition. Now, I'm not talking about the Star Trek
type of voice recognition which can parse sentences and never make a
mistake. I'm referring to specific limited vocabulary of voice
commands (just like the limited vocabulary of gesture commands used)
to aid in controlling the "state" of the system. Here is where I think
voice recognition would be useful:

1. Change weapons. If there were multiple weapons on a ship, then
voice commands would allow the WCO to change weapon/limb
configurations instantaneously.

2. Change firing modes. From the movie, it seemed that one shot was
fired per pumping gesture. Therefore, to take out the dozens of
mines, the WCO had to flail around to keep firing at the closest
(or most dangerous) targets. Instead, a word could be used to set
up continuous firing.

3. Switch gestures. Instead of using the 'pumping' gesture to attack
the mines, instead each finger could be attached to the same or
different weapons. Then only faster finger flicks would be needed
to fire the weapon. This would probably lead to more false
positives, but when you want to all out fire, that usually isn't a
problem.

Voice commands, as well as meta-gesture commands to achieve the same
result as some voice commands, would add great utility to the
system. For #3 above, a different gesture could have been used to fire
a weapon repeated at the mines. Training would be needed, but not
much more than is probably required now.

Another issue is multiple WCOs to handle a larger number of weapons.
I wonder if bigger ships would require multiple officers, and how they
would interact. Maybe their relative orientation in the VR gravity
environment would correspond to the relative location of the weapon
banks.

I noticed gestures being used to control the VR environment. That is
fine, but care must be taken to only use *purposive* gestures. It
would be unfortunate if a random gesture (such as one used to change
the WCO's orientation) resulted in the system performing an unwanted
action. This is why, for example, fingers weren't used to control
weapons during normal combat operations.


Is such as system possible?

Yes! Well, okay, we don't have the anti-gravity yet. If you do, please
email me - we'll do lunch.

But the eye-tracking, body tracking, and gesture recognition systems
are not that far off from what was shown on B5:LotR.

Gesture recognition and body tracking is my area, so let me discuss
that first. The system we've developed at Cybernet can do full body
tracking in complex unstructured backgrounds. We can recognize hand
and body motions (not American Sign Language) - specifically the types
performed by the CWO of the Liandra! That is, repeatable hand/arm
motions, similar to those used by Army scouts, construction crane
operators, and the like. It is beyond the scope of this review to
explain the various mathematical methods of gesture recognition
(geometric, Hidden Markov Model, dynamic based, etc.). You can look
up my dissertation if you really want a full overview!

As a point of information, tracking is a much harder problem than
gesture recognition. Tracking needs to work in a variety of lighting
conditions, backgrounds, and targets (skin color, clothing, hair,
etc.). This problem is not yet completely solved, but it does get
better every year, to the point that products can be made now.

For those interested in gesture recognition (and associated tracking
software), head on over to the Gesture Recognition Home Page [8].

Some commercial body tracking devices are listed below. Many of these
are used by computer game developers to track athlete's movements for
their sports games. Note that all of these are 'tagged' trackers, that
is, something must be worn on the body for tracking to occur. For
Cybernet's gesture recognition system (and for other systems out
there), untagged systems are used and preferred, although they are much
less accurate.

Manufacturer Product Method Output
Cybernet Firefly IR Optical 3D position

Ascension MotionStar DC magnetic field 6DOF position and
orientation

Northern Opto Trak IR Optical 3D position
Digital Inc. 3020

Intersense IS-300 Inertial 3D 6DOF

Polhemus Ultra Trak AC magnetic field 6DOF


There are a small number of companies that produce eye-trackers. While
of course not on the level of fidelity as shown in Babylon 5
(specifically, in order to work the camera has to be extremely close
to the person's eye, which was not the case in B5:LotR!), these
eye-tracking systems are pretty robust. Companies include AmTech,
Applied Science Laboratories, Cybernet, DBA Systems, LC Technologies,
Microguide, NAC, SensoMotoric Instruments [9]. Methods used include
CCD Line Scan cameras, Infra-red oculography, and video imagining.
Precision for these systems is typically at around 0.5 degrees or
less, with a 40 degrees (though some have 80 degrees). The sampling
rate can be anywhere for 50 Hz to 1,000 Hz (with 50-60 Hz typical).

For the Liandra, I would imagine a large array of camera like devices
with an extremely high resolution, sampling at 1,000 Hz or more.


Conclusion:

I do think that this gesture based interactive fire control system for
the Liandra is not only a viable option for a battle environment, it
might even be optimal. Fast accurate targeting, robust weapon
control, full view of the environment, and instant information are all
part of this system. With the addition or showing of meta-control
using voice or other gestures, I think this system would be one that
would practical, even for the control of today's Uninhabited Combat
Aerial Vehicles.

Thank you for reading my article. Comments are always welcome. If you
wish to respond to me directly, please use my personal email of
charles@umich.edu. The work address below should be used only for low
volume work related messages.

Charles J. Cohen, Ph.D.
Vice President, Research and Development
Cybernet Systems Corporation
ccohen@cybernet.com www.cybernet.com

Footnotes:

[1] Some of my papers and talks are:

Program Chair: Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition 2001 - Analysis and
Understanding of Time Varying Imaging. Cosmos Club, Washington, DC,
October 10-12, 2001.

Cohen, Charles J., Glenn Beach, and Gene Foulk. "A Basic Hand Gesture
Control System for PC Applications." Applied Imagery Pattern
Recognition 2001 - Analysis and Understanding of Time Varying
Imaging. Cosmos Club, Washington, DC, October 10-12, 2001.

Cohen, Charles J. "Gesture Recognition Interface for Controlling
Virtual Displays." Virtual Design Technology and Applications.
Somerset Inn, Troy, MI, 15 November 2000.

Cohen, Charles J., Glenn Beach, Doug Haanpaa, and Chuck Jacobus. "A
Real-Time Pose Determination and Reality Registration System." SPIE
AIPR'99 Conference. Washington, DC, 13-15 October 1999.

Cohen, Charles J., Glenn Beach, Brook Cavell, Gene Foulk, Jay
Obermark, and George Paul. "The Control of Self Service Machines
Using Gesture Recognition." SCI'99 and ISAS'99 Conference. Orlando,
FL, 31 July 1999 - 4 August 1999.

Beach, Glenn, Charles J. Cohen, Jeffrey Braun, and Gary Moody. "Eye
Tracking System for Use With Head Mounted Displays." IEEE SMC'98
Conference. San Diego, CA, 11-14 October 1998.

Cohen, Charles J., Glenn Beach, George Paul, Jay Obermark, and Gene
Foulk. "Issues Of Controlling Public Kiosks And Other Self Service
Machines Using Gesture Recognition." IEEE SMC'98 Conference. San
Diego. CA, 11-14 October 1998.

Conway, Lynn and Charles J. Cohen. "Video Mirroring and Iconic
Gestures: Enhancing Basic Videophones to Provide Visual Coaching and
Visual Control." IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, May 1998.

Obermark, Jay, Charles Jacobus, Charles Cohen, and Brian George.
"Building Terrain Maps and Virtual Worlds from Video Imagery."
AeroSense 1998. Orlando FL, 13-17 April 1998.

Conway, Lynn and Charles Cohen. "Apparatus and Method for Remote
Control Through the Visual Information Stream." U.S. Patent 5,652,849,
29 July 1997.

[2] For example: New York Times, 31 August 2000, buried on page D7:
"A Wave of the Hand May Soon Make a Computer Jump to Obey" by Anne
Eisenberg.

[3] Cohen, Charles J. "The Bleeding Edge: New Technologies, New Ways of
Learning." SchoolTech Expo. Chicago Hilton & Towers, Chicago, IL,
17-20 October 2001.

[4] http://www.gesturecentral.com/

[5] Our current Army project is with STRICOM to allow training of
their scouts in their Dismounted Infantry Semi-Automated Forces
(DISAF). See http://source.asset.com/orl/disaf/ for details of their
system.

[6] See the Babylon 5 episode "Shadow Dancing."

[7] http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/117.html

[8] http://www.cybernet.com/~ccohen/

[9] This data is about a year old, so I can't guarantee if any of the
companies are still around. Well, except for ours.


------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

"To Live and Die in Starlight"
pilot movie for "Babylon 5 - The Legend of the Rangers"
January 19, 2002 at 9PM & 11PM EST, January 20, 2002 at 5PM on The Sci-Fi Channel (US).
http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

 

[channe]

Wow... that's what you're talking about when you're talking SCIENCE FICTION...

------------------
channe@cryoterrace | "I wonder," said Frodo, "but I don't know. And that's the way of a real tale."

 

[Incubuz]

Well I hated it...shot from her hands and feet, why not from the head...yuck yuck. Give her some kind of electronic thing on her hands..and it could be accepted..but no screaming. thank you very much.

Btw wouldnt a computer system, be better at aiming??

Incubuz

------------------

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Btw wouldnt a computer system be better at aiming??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Which is why it *does* the aiming, in this system and in all others. What the weapons officer does is target *selection*, not actual aiming. That said, this sort of target/weapon selection needs some tweaking, otherwise it will look a bit odd.

Given how much feedback, criticism and suggestions have been provided, we can be sure that JMS has plenty of info on how this concept can be developed. Next time, it will be better.

------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

KoshN,
the question is not whether it is possible. I don't doubt it is possible. The question is whether it would be good at what it is supposed to do, or if there are simpler alternatives that do the job better.

A few specific comments:

The evaulation assumes the Weapons Officer being already inside the pod and the system up and running. However, that neglects the time lost to get into the pod and bring up the tracking system. That time is critical, since it cripples the Liandra in surprise situations.

Second, I disagree with the field of view assessment. While the WCO has a clear view on the space outside, she has so ONLY IN HER DIRECTION OF VIEW. She has to turn around to see what's going on in the other direction. That's a significant disadvantage to a "third person" view overlooking the area outside the ship that can easily be provided by the technology we have already seen.

------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?

(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)

 

[RW7427]

Kosh N....

Now you're beginning to sound like Joe DeM.

------------------
Dulann: You don't solve your problems by hitting them.
David Martel: Yeah, well, it made me feel better.

 

[Hyperspace]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Second, I disagree with the field of view assessment. While the WCO has a clear view on the space outside, she has so ONLY IN HER DIRECTION OF VIEW. She has to turn around to see what's going on in the other direction. That's a significant disadvantage to a "third person" view overlooking the area outside the ship that can easily be provided by the technology we have already seen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As KoshN noted, and what was pretty obvious as shown, was that aditional targetting and visual information was projected into the operators eyes. I see no reason why a radar/"threat assement" display, listing ships outside of your view would not be projected into the eyes as well.

This is definately a better system than sitting looking at a 2d display, which would be even more limiting. Any such 2d display could easily be projected into the eyes of the operator.

As for the 3rd person perspective - you are just displacing the problem instead of solving it - Ships could still appear "behind" you, no matter what projected 3d position you choose to observe from. No to mention the problems ecountered in makingf sense out of a furball firefight. And the whole point appears to be to make the ship act as an extention of yourself in battle. After all, what is easier to control - a radio controlled car from your 3rd person perspective, or actually *seeing* what the car sees?

------------------
- Lars

[This message has been edited by Hyperspace (edited January 22, 2002).]

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hyperspace:
As KoshN noted, and what was pretty obvious as shown, was that aditional targetting and visual information was projected into the operators eyes. I see no reason why a radar/"threat assemement" display, listing ships outside of your view would not be projected into the eyes as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would require much more concentration to distinguish what is in front and what is behind and thus is distracting. It is in no way equivalent to an actual view.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> This is definately a better system than sitting looking at a 2d display, which would be even more limiting. Any such 2d display could easily be projected into the eyes of the operator. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I never suggested a 2D display.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> As for the 3rd person perspective - you are just displacing the problem instead of solving it - Ships could still appear "behind" you, no matter what projected 3d position you choose to observe from. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here's where you are mistaken. If your viewpoint is in sufficient distance, it doesn't make a difference where in relation to the ship another object appears, you will see it. Now they still can be outside the display, but if the display covers weapons range, that would be pretty meaningless for the WCO and a simple notification of an object approaching on a certain vector is enough to be prepared when the object comes into range.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Not to mention the problems ecountered in makingf sense out of a furball firefight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that would be better in the pod, when ships woosh by you but continue firing, but you can't just turn around cause they're firing from the direction you are currently looking into as well? There's two easy solutions: One is "Don't let them get that close", the other is "zoom in"


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> And the whole point appears to be to make the ship act as an extention of yourself in battle. After all, what is easier to control - a radio controlled car from your 3rd person perspective, or actually *seeing* what the car sees? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

a) We're not talking about steering the ship, but: Try steering the car through an obstacle course. You will find an overhead view much appreciated. If you can see what is coming at you without it being a current threat, you can react much more meaningful to it, you can _act_ instead of _re-act_.

b)Since the whole system is "shoot-by-wire" anyway, what you see is pretty irrelevant. The question is whether it is easy for you to acquire the target, no matter where in relation to the ship it is, and if it is easy for you to fire at it, if necessary in quick succession.



------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?

(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)

 

[Lyta]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RW7427:
Kosh N....

Now you're beginning to sound like Joe DeM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Judging from the last few posts, it sounds like people think KoshN wrote that extremely lengthy and well thought out post (which does have a JoeD-esqe quality to it). He was merely reposting the post that was originally written by Charles J. Cohen (with permission). I am sure KoshN does not want to take credit for anything Mr. Cohen wrote so you should probably direct your comments to him (even though he may not participate in these boards) or at least give credit where credit is due.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting people's reactions, so I apologize if I did.

My point in asking people read Mr. Cohen's review is to give another perspective on the matter from what could be considered an "expert" in the field. Whether or not you change your mind about the gunnery pod is up to you.

Also, my other point was that if you provide JMS feedback in an intellectual and constructive way, you will probably get better results than complaining about it on these boards.

PS: This confusion about who posted what is exactly why I did not repost Mr. Cohen's review ... not to mention the length.

------------------
Monica Hübinette | Abyss : B5 <- New & Improved!
Pouch-sucking spawn of a bladder fish! Son of a fitch piece of smelt! Tok-swallowing fenbarger! Thrak it! --Na'Feel swearing in B5LR

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lyta:
He was merely reposting the post that was originally written by Charles J. Cohen (with permission). I am sure KoshN does not want to take credit for anything Mr. Cohen wrote so you should probably direct your comments to him (even though he may not participate in these boards) or at least give credit where credit is due.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I loved Mr. Cohen's analysis, and think it's pretty on-target, from what little I know about this subject (I work with special ed kids, many of whom use assistive technology - and the gunnery pod is definitely a logical and creative extension of current technology).

Thanks for including the link.

------------------

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lyta:
He was merely reposting the post that was originally written by Charles J. Cohen (with permission). I am sure KoshN does not want to take credit for anything Mr. Cohen wrote so you should probably direct your comments to him (even though he may not participate in these boards) or at least give credit where credit is due.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I loved Mr. Cohen's analysis, and think it's pretty on-target, from what little I know about this subject (I work with special ed kids, many of whom use assistive technology - and the gunnery pod is definitely a logical and creative extension of current technology).

Thanks for including the link.

------------------

 

[Fineous]

O.K. Fine, I will rehash a point I made in the other thread, since the point seems to have been ignored.

The fact is, the Liandra is an old ship, but it is still a Minbari ship. As far as the Minbari knew, no one else out there was any sort of a match for them technologically. Therefore, why do they use this system? Because it is good enough. If you think the military uses the newest and best technology then you are sadly lacking information on the military. They do not use the newest and best, they use the absoloute minimum necessary to get the job done. The Minbari technology difference is so great from that of anyone that could have been a possible threat, that you might compare the Liandra to a WWII prop plane, and the large cruisers to an F-117 but they are both still in service because the rest of the galaxy is still using biplanes.

Until the shadow war, and the Drakh, and now the Hand show up. They have technology comparable to the Minbari. Suddenly the old out of date methods are no longer being put into use.

The punching and kicking could well have been put into place to let Minbari warriors, and or Rangers show off their martial skills. The separate weapons pod? Well, it just didn't matter if the weapons officer was not in it when the fight started, 'coz no one could hit them anyway. Hell, if the human minbari war was anything to go by it wouldn't have mattered if the WO was in the SHOWER when a fight started. They still would have had time to get out, dry off, comb their hair, and then nonchalantly wander over to the weapons pod.

The Minbari are ALIENS. They think differently. However, if you were sent back to the time of the crusades in a Tank, would you really be terribly concerned about your safety, or would you feel free to show off a little bit? Because, if you think about it, that is the difference in technology between the Minbari and everyone else. They were sufficiently advanced to help during the LAST shadow war over 1000 years ago. Can you really imagine anyone with a 1000 year technological advantage over everyone else really being at all concerned about possible minor inefficiencies in their system?

Once the shadow war happened, however, and the Drakh made their presence known, all of a sudden there were other big boys on the block. THAT is when the military will change, because the technological superiority is no longer there. Thus you have to start fine tuning what you have. That means that newer ships probably have fire control systems that are more efficient.

Because of the tech difference, the Liandra is not inefficient. It is just not as efficient as it could be.

------------------
"In the Beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
-Douglas Adams 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy'

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> The fact is, the Liandra is an old ship, but it is still a Minbari ship. As far as the Minbari knew, no one else out there was any sort of a match for them technologically. Therefore, why do they use this system? Because it is good enough. If you think the military uses the newest and best technology then you are sadly lacking information on the military. They do not use the newest and best, they use the absoloute minimum necessary to get the job done. The Minbari technology difference is so great from that of anyone that could have been a possible threat, that you might compare the Liandra to a WWII prop plane, and the large cruisers to an F-117 but they are both still in service because the rest of the galaxy is still using biplanes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are comparing the uncomparable, sorry.
The Liandra was built, as JMS himself stated, to go out on the edge. In such situations, you have to expect the unexpected. You can't build such a ship around what you know, you have to build it based on what could happen. And the Minbari are very well aware there are things out there capable of crushing them with their big toe. Surprises happen, and a ship that is meant to operate alone better be ready for them. More, you are ignoring the fact that the Minbari have fought the Shadows in the past and have contact with the Vorlons, and know they are NOT the biggest players on the block.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Once the shadow war happened, however, and the Drakh made their presence known, all of a sudden there were other big boys on the block. THAT is when the military will change, because the technological superiority is no longer there. Thus you have to start fine tuning what you have. That means that newer ships probably have fire control systems that are more efficient. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is: The Minbari were always aware that such folks were out there. More, they had contact with the Vorlons. They had fought the Shadows in the past. They have no reason whatsoever to expect to be able to handle anything out there.



------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?

(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)

 

[Fineous]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Irmo:
Problem is: The Minbari were always aware that such folks were out there. More, they had contact with the Vorlons. They had fought the Shadows in the past. They have no reason whatsoever to expect to be able to handle anything out there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, but in "In the beginning" You can clearly see that no one really is sure whether or not to believe any of that. I mean, there is a clear prophecy left by Valen, that in 1000 years the war would come again, and the time is approaching rapidly, and STILL they do not believe it. They do not even seem to be worried at all. Precisely because there has been no challenge to them.

It is one thing to know intellectually that there is something out there that can take you out. It is quite another thing to be able to convince the military. Look at the Earth. Totally convinced that there is nothing out there that can seriously threaten them 'coz the Dilgar were so easy.

Why should the Minbari be anything different. To them it has been over 1000 years since anyone has been able to threaten them. Even at the height of the republic the Centauri were afraid of the Minbari, and they are arguably the next most powerful of the 'known' (I.E. known before the shadow war) races.

Hell, look at us. Most carriers still use f-14s fer christ sake, and those things are ANCIENT in terms of modern jet fighters. They are, however, good enough to get the job done. And they are cheap to produce compared to much more modern, cutting edge, technology.

I'm not saying the Minbari don't have better ways. I am just saying that on low end ships, ships designed to scout and run away, NOT to fight, there is no need for them. What they have is good enough.

------------------
"In the Beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
-Douglas Adams 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy'

[This message has been edited by Fineous (edited January 22, 2002).]